The Cherokee Nation, a sovereign entity within the United States, is on the cusp of a pivotal decision that will redefine its membership criteria and potentially reshape its identity. Next month, Cherokee citizens will participate in a referendum, casting their votes on a proposed amendment to the tribal constitution. This amendment, if ratified, would establish "Indian blood" as a prerequisite for citizenship, a move that has ignited a passionate debate about heritage, justice, and the very essence of Native American identity. The heart of the matter lies in the contested status of the Cherokee Freedmen, descendants of African slaves once held by members of the Cherokee Nation.
The question of Cherokees to Vote: Can Freedmen be Native American? delves into a complex historical tapestry woven with threads of slavery, treaties, tribal sovereignty, and evolving definitions of belonging. For the Cherokee Freedmen, their claim to citizenship rests on a treaty signed 140 years ago, a document they believe guarantees their rights within the Cherokee Nation. However, for some members of the tribe, the concept of shared bloodlines forms the cornerstone of their cultural identity, leading them to advocate for a constitutional amendment that excludes those without documented Native American ancestry.
To understand the nuances of this debate, it’s crucial to explore the historical context. The Cherokee Nation, one of the largest and historically most influential tribes in the United States, has a complex past. Two centuries ago, it thrived as one of the wealthiest tribes, with some members owning plantations and, tragically, holding enslaved Africans. This history of slave ownership is a painful chapter, and its legacy continues to reverberate within the tribe today. Ironically, despite their past wealth, many Cherokee people have faced significant economic hardship in recent times.
The tribe’s fortunes have seen a gradual upturn with the advent of tribal casinos. The revenues generated by these gambling operations have fueled investments in essential services, such as modern healthcare facilities. In places like Muskogee, Oklahoma, new health clinics are rising, symbolizing the potential for a brighter future. This newfound prosperity has emboldened Cherokee Freedmen like Johnny Toomer, a forklift operator in Muskogee, to reassert their claims to tribal membership, believing that they are entitled to a fair share of the benefits.
Toomer’s personal story is a powerful illustration of the Freedmen’s struggle. He articulates his desire for fair treatment, echoing the experiences of his ancestors who, he believes, received their due. His great-great-grandmother was the daughter of slaves held by the Cherokee, and her journey likely included the harrowing Trail of Tears in 1838, a forced march orchestrated by the U.S. government that resulted in the deaths of nearly one-fifth of the Cherokee population. This traumatic event is etched into the collective memory of the Cherokee people, both those of Native American descent and the descendants of slaves.
Toomer’s claim to citizenship rests on the Dawes Rolls, a federal government census compiled around 1900 that lists members of the Cherokee and four other tribes residing on Indian lands. Having a direct ancestor listed on these rolls has traditionally been considered proof of tribal membership. However, a century ago, a bureaucrat made a crucial notation regarding Toomer’s great-great-grandmother, identifying her as a Cherokee freedman. This designation now threatens his tribal citizenship, raising questions about the role of race and ancestry in determining belonging.
The question that burns within Toomer is whether the color of his skin is the reason for his potential exclusion. For him, it seems that way, a painful reminder of the historical injustices that continue to cast a shadow over the present.
The upcoming referendum was triggered by a tribal court ruling that initially recognized Freedmen as citizens. This ruling led to approximately 1,500 Freedmen signing up for tribal membership cards, a development that alarmed some members of the Cherokee Nation. This concern led to the referendum drive, aimed at amending the constitution and formally expelling the Freedmen.
Jodie Fishinghawk, a leading voice in the referendum movement, emphasizes the importance of shared ancestry. She asserts that the amendment is about preserving the unique cultural identity of the Cherokee people, arguing that "Indian blood" is the bond that unites them. She points out that most Indian nations require documented direct ancestors in the tribe for citizenship, and that their standards are more stringent than the Cherokee’s current guidelines.
Fishinghawk defends the tribe’s right to set its own citizenship requirements as an integral part of its sovereignty. She frames the referendum as a democratic process, emphasizing the right of the Cherokee people to vote on matters that directly affect their nation. She believes there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing citizens to decide who belongs within their community.
However, the Cherokee Freedmen view the situation differently. They emphasize the 1866 treaty signed after the Civil War, which they believe guarantees citizenship to their ancestors who were formerly enslaved by the Cherokee. Marilyn Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association, argues that the treaty’s provisions supersede the tribe’s claims of sovereignty in this particular instance.
Vann challenges the notion of a distinct "Cherokee race," asserting that the Cherokee Nation has always been a diverse entity, based on citizenship rather than racial purity. She suggests that it would be safer for the tribe to identify itself as a nation of people, rather than a race, arguing that the federal government’s relationships with tribes are based on their status as sovereign nations, not as racial groups.
Principal Chief Chad Smith offers a different perspective, emphasizing the search for tribal identity as a driving force behind the increasing desire to be part of the Cherokee Nation. He suggests that people are drawn to tribes because of their indigenous roots, their strong sense of identity, and their resilience in the face of adversity. He believes that tribes offer a sense of belonging and cultural continuity that is particularly appealing in a rapidly changing world.
The Cherokee Freedmen, however, maintain that their ancestors played a crucial role in sustaining the tribe during its most challenging periods. They argue that, having endured hardship and contributed to the tribe’s survival, they should not have to fight for their right to be recognized as Cherokees, especially now that the tribe’s fortunes have improved.
The upcoming vote on Cherokees to Vote: Can Freedmen be Native American? is more than just a decision about citizenship; it’s a reflection of the complex interplay between history, identity, and sovereignty. The vote will have profound implications for the Cherokee Nation, shaping its future and redefining the meaning of belonging. The question remains, will the Cherokee Nation embrace a definition of citizenship based on shared bloodlines, or will it uphold the treaty obligations that have guaranteed the rights of the Freedmen for over a century? The answer lies in the hands of the Cherokee people as they head to the polls next month. This is not just a local issue; Cherokees to Vote: Can Freedmen be Native American? has national implications for tribal sovereignty and identity.